Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
FACTS
Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property to secure a loan from his uncle, Brahmo Dutt. The mortgage was later sold to the plaintiff, Mohori Bibee. At the time of entering into the contract, Dharmodas Ghose was a minor, meaning he was below the age of 18. The representative of Brahmo Dutt was fully aware of his legal incompetence to enter into contracts or mortgage his property. Dharmodas Ghose and his mother initiated legal action against Brahmo Dutta, arguing that the mortgage executed during Dharmodas's minority was void and improper, requiring the contract's revocation.
During the proceedings, Brahmo Dutta passed away, and the appeal was continued by his executors.
The plaintiff contended that no leniency should be granted, alleging that the defendant had knowingly misrepresented Dharmodas's age.
The Trial Court ruled that the mortgage contract was void since it was entered into by a minor.Brahmo Dutta, dissatisfied with the verdict, appealed to the Calcutta High Court.The Calcutta High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, agreeing that the mortgage contract was void and dismissed Brahmo Dutta's appeal.
ISSUES
Whether the deed was void under Sections 2, 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) or not?
Whether the defendant was liable to return the amount of loan which he had received by him under such deed or mortgage or not?
Whether the mortgage commenced by the defendant was voidable or not?
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
1.Law Of Estoppel
2. Section 64 and 65 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
3. Refund under Specific Relief Act, 1877
JUDGEMENT
The judgment in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose is as follows:
After carefully examining the facts of the case, the Privy Council ruled that the agreement made with a minor is void ab initio, which means it is void from the very beginning. The court also addressed the defendant’s arguments.
Firstly, the court in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose determined that the law of estoppel would not apply in this case since Brahmo Dutta’s attorney had knowledge of Dharmodas’s minority status.
Secondly, the court clarified that Section 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act would not apply because there was no valid agreement in the first place and for these sections to be applicable, the contract must be between competent parties.
As a result, the court in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose established a precedent that agreements with minors are void ab initio based on this case.
CONCLUSION
The case of Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose was a landmark legal case in India. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, had mortgaged his property to Brahmo Dutta. When he later sought to void the contract, the court ruled in his favor, declaring the agreement with the minor void ab initio, or void from the outset. The court rejected the application of estoppel, as Brahmo Dutta’s agent knew of Dharmodas’s minority. Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act were deemed inapplicable because the parties were not competent due to Dharmodas’s minor status. The case also addressed the restitution of benefits received by minors, with a distinction made between goods and money. The court in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose held that agreements with minors are void ab initio, providing protection for minors from incurring liabilities beyond their capacity to contract.
-KUSH KUTHIALA
HPNLU
Comentarios